PvXwiki talk:Ban on Lack of Skill
Discuss. — Skakid9090 23:05, 26 November 2007 (CET) :Can it be an IP ban pls? --71.229.204.25 23:08, 26 November 2007 (CET) It's quite terse and to the point. I like it. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 01:08, 27 November 2007 (CET) didnt we hav some problems with ppl remaking there unfavored(and then deleted)builds constantly if so this could help sorta idk wat im gettin at though......--[[User:Vorrax|'«º¤¥Ω☼Vørråx☼Ω¥¤º»']] 01:12, 27 November 2007 (CET) This is good stuff. The title is the whole page.-- [[User:Victoryisyours|'Victory']] (''talk''/ ) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (CET) This policy should be opened in a seperate tab or window everytime someone visits PvXwiki. This policy is made of epicsauce. This policy pwns real vetting to the ground. [[User:Misfate|'Misfate']] 01:38, 27 November 2007 (CET) :Subject to scrutiny due to most of this site is based on opinion, but I think its ok. Some people learn by being proved wrong, *coughs* me *coughs* i've learned alot by arguing with other people, at least the people who argue tactfully xD. --Shadowsin 01:49, 27 November 2007 (CET) ::If they're willing to learn, then they needn't be banned =) — Skakid9090 01:53, 27 November 2007 (CET) :::True dat.--Shadowsin 02:06, 27 November 2007 (CET) ::::Can i add parameters? :P #3 strike rule #sock puppets #Retardedly biased author votes -> (This build is l33t PwnZ0r) #Swearing to make a point -> bad point (FUCK JOO THIS BUILD IS l33T!) #Vandalism from haters #RE applying an already trashed build --Shadowsin 02:06, 27 November 2007 (CET) Most of the stuff you say is already implemented in other policies, but the 3 strike rule sounds cool. — Skakid9090 02:07, 27 November 2007 (CET) I would hope that this would be no more than a 1 day ban, and only with utmost consideration, otherwise we will end up with no community. 70.157.48.153 02:09, 27 November 2007 (CET) :Aguing your poing to longer than 25kb xD, after being totally disproved by 2 or more non-new users. or an Admin. --Shadowsin 02:11, 27 November 2007 (CET) p-shaw numbers 3&4 on that list is wut ppl should be doin /sarcasm(or is it)--[[User:Vorrax|'«º¤¥Ω☼Vørråx☼Ω¥¤º»']] 02:12, 27 November 2007 (CET) :ah hah or. --Shadowsin 02:13, 27 November 2007 (CET) :: OH OH! Refusing to learn wiki code. Or posting build stubs with names but nothing else. Rename to ban based on hardheadedness and/or self-impressed noobishness. 70.157.48.153 02:15, 27 November 2007 (CET) :Shadowsin, you're already at two strikes. :O --71.229.204.25 02:20, 27 November 2007 (CET) ::You too :O--Shadowsin 05:18, 27 November 2007 (CET) This is of course a joke. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 02:23, 27 November 2007 (CET) :It is? We were about to pass it I think... 70.157.48.153 02:25, 27 November 2007 (CET) grinch thats 2 better watch ur language(or wateva this is for) :P--[[User:Vorrax|'«º¤¥Ω☼Vørråx☼Ω¥¤º»']] 02:28, 27 November 2007 (CET) I can't say that I like this, because experience is too much in the eye of the beholder. Even the most experienced people can flub up a few times in sequence, and if it happens to be your first sequence of posts on the wiki, you're kinda done in. Maybe make it a stripping of voting privileges, with possibility of restoration when they can prove theirselves... --Powersurge 02:34, 27 November 2007 (CET) :If you thought this could ever be passed, end yourself and read Assume Good Faith. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 02:35, 27 November 2007 (CET) :We don't need to actually punish people for breaking it, just having a rule that says "don't be bad" is good enough imo. --71.229.204.25 02:37, 27 November 2007 (CET) ::Assume Good Faith has nothing to do with people blatently showing they're bad at GW, it only prevents us from baning them before we know that. Of course it is a joke though, no matter how much support it gets it won't be passed (sadly). — Skakid9090 02:38, 27 November 2007 (CET) :::(EC)Hitler convinced entire nations of otherwise good people to kill and/or look the other way while he went to work on his "invalids". Never know when the next massive hoodwink could come from (though obviously not on such a large scale, lol) --Powersurge 02:39, 27 November 2007 (CET) ::::GODWIN'D THREAD OVER EVERYONE GO HOME ::::But seriously, what? --71.229.204.25 02:42, 27 November 2007 (CET) i'd suggest we kinda merge this into the build master policy. it has a similar aim but uses a different way to solve the problem of noobs. i'd suggest giving bms the right to ban such ppl. - Y0_ich_halt 18:45, 1 December 2007 (CET) :Absolutely not. Rapta's main argument is its potential to ward off such noobs. Just..read the talk page, please. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 18:50, 1 December 2007 (CET) Epic, should been a policy since looongg ago. Fishy Moo 00:34, 2 December 2007 (CET) I love this ----[[User:InfestedHydralisk|'Infested'Hydralisk]] 19px([[User_talk:InfestedHydralisk|'Talk']]* ) 10:44, 2 December 2007 (CET) Usually, I'd find this kind of thing just humorous, and not consider it serious at all. But I've read the talk page for cripshot, and am tempted to agree with the sentiment :\ I got a good laugh out of even just the title btw-nice job :P Dejh 01:08, 6 January 2008 (EST) Perfect for some users, i'd love to have this. Now you can just ban annoing fags instead of ignore them, or just use this policy as a way that they will actually see that they're wrong. Also, I think there should be a policy so you can actually let sysops rate some users down, since you have tons of ppl who just 5-5-5 some builds while it's crap, no understanding of it's purpose and how it actually works. They just say works and stuff - but everything works, even echo mending works. It's how effective it is in it's design. - [[User:Unexist|'Unexist']] 04:41, 12 January 2008 (EST) :So, PvXwiki will be come an elitist society if this is implemented? BaineTheBotter 04:57, 12 January 2008 (EST) ::PvXwiki should be an elitist society. Let me explain why. ::In life, not everyone's good at all things. There are stupid people, there are clumsy people, there are forgetful people. But the stupid guy works hard, the clumsy guy is nice to kids, and the forgetful guy is a conscientious voter. Or summat. Once you take in all the dimensions, things tend to work out pretty even in the end. ::In Guild Wars and all related things, there is exactly one dimension: skill. You're either good or you're bad, and that's all that matters. There's nothing to balance out sucking at the game. ::So bad people should be prevented from being bad in public, in the same way fat chicks should be prevented from wearing biker shorts in public. --71.229 07:26, 12 January 2008 (EST) i'm bad, by the way. :::lol i saw the small text. ----[[User:InfestedHydralisk|'Infested'Hydralisk]] 19px([[User_talk:InfestedHydralisk|'Talk']]* ) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (EST) ::::ohai zeus sucks cocks now --71.229 07:40, 12 January 2008 (EST) :::::o rly? ----[[User:InfestedHydralisk|'Infested'Hydralisk]] 19px([[User_talk:InfestedHydralisk|'Talk']]* ) 08:01, 12 January 2008 (EST) ::::::::::::So the general idea is to ban people who time and time again make this kind of thing? http://pvx.wikia.com/wiki/User:Mgrinshpon/Leet#Builds_from_PvXwiki, and then stand on their beliefs that they are good? Isn't that a surefire way to scare people away? Seb2net (Talk) 08:10, 12 January 2008 (EST) ::::::::::The idea is to rid of the people who don't lrn 3 ply BaineTheBotter 08:35, 12 January 2008 (EST) LRN2SPELL IMO LOL Gaypalm 08:37, 12 January 2008 (EST) To baine: no, wiki should not be an elitist community, rather just helping less good players the right way. But with what i mean is, some people just don't learn, for example, you see a monk running mending. You explain why mending is bad, he doesn't listen. You explain over and over again, 3 months later he's still running mending. That same guy wants his build on wiki. He submits, people say it's bad, it gets deleten. He submits again, and again, and those people just need a ban on their ass. Wiki is to make people's GW brain active, but guys without a brain or not willing to open their brains and make it better should be be banned, yes. - [[User:Unexist|'Unexist']] 07:14, 13 January 2008 (EST) Policy Revival gogogo [[User:Misfate|'Misfate']] 11:23, 12 January 2008 (EST) :I'm almost starting to like this idea. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 14:06, 12 January 2008 (EST) ::I think we should implement this policy, but along with a sister policy of "Ban for Lack of Help." We should Ban people who refuse to take help when offered on MANY occasions, but only if we can also Ban people who try to Ban said people without offering said help. Both would be 1-7 day Bans, of course (non-permanent). — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 13:02, 12 February 2008 (EST) How about no Sorry, but PvX should be an open Wiki, like all other Wikis. Unless someone is breaking policy like NPA, Vandalism, socks, etc, they shouldn't be banned. When I first joined this Wiki I was a complete noob, but have since improved. I still am a noob, but not as much. Let's cut this elitist crap Policy. --20pxGuildof 15:47, 12 January 2008 (EST) :^ban candidate [[User:Ibreaktoilets|'Tab']] Moo 15:49, 12 January 2008 (EST) ::If PvXWiki truly is a democracy, this policy will never come into play. Still, I think then it's unclear. If someone makes a bad build, does that mean they're banned? If they make a Great build do they stay? Anyway, everyone can improve and learn from PvX. I wouldn't even give this site the respect of a Wiki if it starts banning people for making a bad build or not being as good as other people. Any higher-up or person who knows Wiki will nod this off. Anyway, does that mean you'll kick people who are known around the site but maybe aren't the greatest build makers? --20pxGuildof 17:29, 12 January 2008 (EST) :::We're not banning everyone for being bad, we ban people for disrupting us with their badness (i.e., continuously stating their incorrect opinion) — Skadiddly슴Mc슴Diddles 17:30, 12 January 2008 (EST) ::::"OMG, BURNING ARROW, BROAD HEAD ARROW, CRIPPLING SHOT, AND MAGEBANE SHOT RANGER ARE THE SAME BUILDS WITH DIFFRENT ELITES! MERGE TEHM!!!!" - example? — [[User:Victoryisyours|'Victoryisyours']] (''talk''/ ) 17:33, 12 January 2008 (EST) :::::no, thats just people who are bored pushing their OCD tendecies, imo. I am completely in favor of this policy. i'm a fucking nub but i dont peddle my shit, i dont think i even vote on builds i submit cept for ones like the rt/mo where everyone knew it was gonna get a great. 17:37, 12 January 2008 (EST) ::::::Also, Guild, PvX is not and has never been a democracy, nor should it be. See Grinch's Leet page for my reasoning. --71.229 22:54, 12 January 2008 (EST) :::::::As 71.229 said, good Wikis are never democracies. It's a fail form of government. See also: GWW. :::::::But I don't forsee this becoming policy anytime soon. -Auron 23:01, 12 January 2008 (EST) ::::::::Indeed. theres a difference between democracy and kickign out the idiots. 23:04, 12 January 2008 (EST) ::Since we have DICK, why don't we have NOOB? BaineTheBotter 07:01, 13 January 2008 (EST) :::Unfortunately, we don't have DICK either. --71.229 07:04, 13 January 2008 (EST) ::::We're without DICK? i meant NOOB as a proposal BaineTheBotter 07:16, 13 January 2008 (EST) :::::Oh. Yeah, we've got plenty of proposed DICK, but it always fails to materialize. --71.229 07:16, 13 January 2008 (EST) ::::::Benefit of the doubt then. BaineTheBotter 07:21, 13 January 2008 (EST) DICK is the great unwritten policy. It's used to get those smart asses who are like "oooh look at me! I'm being a complete DOUCHE but I'm not breaking rules! Haha!" Anyway, I have this. --20pxGuildof 11:39, 13 January 2008 (EST) This is a great policy, and should definitely be added. Although I'm not sure why it hasn't been added yet... [[User:Infidel|'Infidel']](talk) 18:41, 13 January 2008 (EST) This policy rules! Die n00bz die! [[User:Dark_Morphon|'Dark']] [[User_talk:Dark_Morphon|'Morphon']] 12:49, 23 January 2008 (EST) How about yes Sorry, but PvX shouldn't be an open Wiki, like all other good Wikis. When someone is breaking policy like BAN, WELL, DIS, etc, they should be banned. When I first joined this Wiki I was complete awesome, and have since improved. I still am an awesome, but only ten times as much. Let's cut this scrub crap Policy haters. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 12:52, 23 January 2008 (EST) :/epeen much. I don't hate the policy, but banning people that break policies is something that should happen. However, your sig still breaks PvX:SIGN. ~~ [[User:Napalm Flame|'Napalm Flame']] >=] (talk)· 12:56, 23 January 2008 (EST) ::grinch = awesome?...lol wut ----[[User:InfestedHydralisk|'Infested'Hydralisk]] 19px([[User_talk:InfestedHydralisk|'Talk']]* ) 13:17, 23 January 2008 (EST) :::My sig breaking PvX:SIGN is the not the issue at hand (disregarding the fact that PvX:SIGN is a guideline and doesn't have to be followed exactly because the pie isn't distracting). Of course I was kidding. Assume Good Faith is always going to be there to make sure this policy is never enacted. I'd ever agree with this policy but it's become tempting at times. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 13:27, 23 January 2008 (EST) ::::You actually have a very valid point there. ~~ [[User:Napalm Flame|'Napalm Flame']] >=] (talk)· 13:32, 23 January 2008 (EST) IM BEING DISTRACTED BY THE PIE. ITS TOO CUTE AND DELICIOUS. MR ADMINS PRZ BAN IHM PRZ I RLY NEED> DEFIANT ELEMTNSZ. 204.108.80.12 13:35, 23 January 2008 (EST) -- [[User:Ibreaktoilets|'Tab']] Moo 13:57, 23 January 2008 (EST) Yes please I don't care if I get banned because of this, give this a Yes. Antiarchangel 12:53, 3 March 2008 (EST) :After some debating, I realized I'm probably not as horrible to be banned by this (hey, I actually have some favored builds). I give this a thumbs up. --20pxGuildof 18:03, 17 March 2008 (EDT) +1 YEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS HAWK SMASHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH [[User:ISnowBunnyI|'Snow']] [[User_talk:ISnowBunnyI|'Bunny']] 22:56, 17 June 2008 (EDT) :This was, quite literally, the most valuable post that the wiki has received in years. — Skakid 13:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT) ::Lulz--Goldenstar 13:48, 18 June 2008 (EDT) Criteria *Saying Cripshot is bad *Basically any of the Gates Assassins things. After they read them, if they still disagree, /ban. *What else? 23:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT) :Disagreeing with me. -- [[User:Ibreaktoilets|'Tab']] Moo 08:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT) ::I disagree! [[User:Godliest|'God']][[User_talk:Godliest|'box']] 20px 08:51, 18 June 2008 (EDT) :::b7 -- [[User:Ibreaktoilets|'Tab']] Moo 08:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT) ::::Would that make properly placed "no u" chains into banfests? ¬ «Ðêjh»'' (talk)'' 11:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT) :::::How about saying Frvwfr2 is wrng? Frans 11:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT) disagree why? A lot of how good a build is - is just opinion. It may be a good effective build for someone, but not so effective for someone else - that doesn't mean they're a bad player. How many players can actually use GoE-diversion? Or boon signet monks? Scribe's remedy? All run by top level guilds, right? :secondly, it's a well known fact that shitty looking builds are vetted if a high-ranked player uses it, even if they were submitted before and rejected. Perfect example: http://pvx.wikia.com/wiki/Build:W/E_HB_DoT_Tank. How many of you "good" players saw this builds and were immediately like "WTF this, build is bad."?--Thc 12:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT) ::The thing with it is that, as some good guy (probably tab) said, it only proves that the people who run it can run almost anything, and still score kills. Basically a build isn't instantly good because of that, much is up to the player, and that's what all top 100 GvG and equal guilds prove when they run stupid builds. And regarding the example posted: HB is in many ways a very strange "arena" to design builds for, and now that I've looked at it doesn't actually seem as bad as I first though; it got low energy nukes, lots of defense, anti-meta skills, IMS and a knockdown. [[User:Godliest|'God']][[User_talk:Godliest|'box']] 20px 13:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT) ::HB is a retarded gametype, don't base any assumptions off of it. — Skakid 13:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT) :::^ [[User:Godliest|'God']][[User_talk:Godliest|'box']] 20px 13:14, 18 June 2008 (EDT) ::::Yep. ~~ 13:16, 18 June 2008 (EDT) ::::Deleted now btw. ~~ 13:17, 18 June 2008 (EDT) :::::Oops, the system works. --71.229 13:18, 18 June 2008 (EDT) cripshot is baed shock axe is not vry effective eitther. 204.108.80.10 13:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT) :Fail troll is fail -- [[User:Ibreaktoilets|'Tab']] Moo 13:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT) ::Obvious fail troll is obvious fail. 204.108.80.10 14:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT) :::Hi GoD. --71.229 14:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT) ::::Baed guesser is baed. 204.108.80.10 14:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT) :::::Fuck off. — Skakid 14:04, 18 June 2008 (EDT) ::::::noU. 204.108.80.10 14:04, 18 June 2008 (EDT) Making a ranger build without distracting shot. I like to be an asshat. Also; it IS in great. Brandnew. 14:04, 18 June 2008 (EDT) :Dshot in the optional. 204.108.80.10 14:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT) :::That's not a ranger, it's a dervish with a different primary. Didn't you see the part about the big fucking scythe?--Goldenstar 14:06, 18 June 2008 (EDT) I would ban everyone except grinch. he is the father of my unborn twins, thus making him a GW god. --[[User:Readem|'Readem']] 14:32, 18 June 2008 (EDT) :Especially since you've never met him in RL. That online sex is dangerous. --image:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*[[user talk:Guild of Deals|'Wah']] Wah!* 14:41, 18 June 2008 (EDT) ::And hawt. [[User:Godliest|'God']][[User_talk:Godliest|'box']] 20px 14:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT) :::Emphasis on hawt--Goldenstar 14:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT) Asdf any more the eviscerate executioners strike spike dont work that much but its fairly effective. very weak against any type of anti-melee and shock is a costly interrupt skill. Gogey 14:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT) :...That really has no relation to the current subject. Yes, if anyone supports that they should uninstall, but please relate it to the topic. --image:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*[[user talk:Guild of Deals|'Wah']] Wah!* 14:46, 18 June 2008 (EDT) Why is this bad you may ask. I'll tell you why: Build Masters. We already have this covered. Drop this like a heroin habit and PvX will be better off. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 12:09, 9 December 2008 (EST)